Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 20:20:40 GMT
Just another opportunity which CRT (management) have found to divide us all. I’m sure this guy is doing no harm to anyone (unless he’s being used as a stooge), but the intent I’m seeing from CRT at a very vulnerable time in this country is blinding. It will be remembered I’m sure. Yes it is interesting timing. Is this a CRT story or a nbta story. www.thenamemeaning.com/andrzei/Polish it seems. So the topic is about whether eastern Europeans have a right to use UK canal towpaths for residing in large volume non conventional semi static vessels. And anyone else of course. I wonder if this man has a house back home ? Me thinks so. It’s not CRT’s job to be political or to be police. It’s CRT’s job to maintain the waterways for everyone’s enjoyment. So is this guy spoiling the enjoyment for the majority of boaters in this country? Of course not. There are unique issues in London. but why are CRT getting involved? This is an issue for local government, not CRT.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Apr 7, 2019 20:23:47 GMT
?? There IS no s.11(c) in the 95 Act. You mean s.17(11)(c) I presume (being pedantic as usual). Assuming so, then yes. Yes Nigel I was being lazy. I did think of checking it but couldn't be arsed. One of my weak points I'm afraid. CBA syndrome. Pedantry is good. Completely empathise. Problem is, when dealing with such issues in court scenarios, that CBA leads to the A being shafted.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 20:26:56 GMT
Yes it is interesting timing. Is this a CRT story or a nbta story. www.thenamemeaning.com/andrzei/Polish it seems. So the topic is about whether eastern Europeans have a right to use UK canal towpaths for residing in large volume non conventional semi static vessels. And anyone else of course. I wonder if this man has a house back home ? Me thinks so. It’s not CRT’s job to be political or to be police. It’s CRT’s job to maintain the waterways for everyone’s enjoyment. So is this guy spoiling the enjoyment for the majority of boaters in this country? Of course not. There are unique issues in London. but why are CRT getting involved? This is an issue for local government, not CRT. It should indeed be which is why I would advocate local authority management of all towpath moorings. CRT is not a housing authority. They offer some residential moorings but the lawful use of these is subject to local authority management at the end of the day. CRT are being asked, by nbta as an example, to be a health and housing service. How can they do this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 20:30:49 GMT
So is this guy spoiling the enjoyment for the majority of boaters in this country? Of course not. Not on an individual level but if you work on the basis of what is good for the goose is good for the gander then there are loads of people waiting in the wings. Let's face it if there were low or no controls on towpath use it would very rapidly turn into a slum which would lead to intervention by an authority with teeth. Yes its a regional problem. We've been through this story before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2019 20:41:41 GMT
It’s not CRT’s job to be political or to be police. It’s CRT’s job to maintain the waterways for everyone’s enjoyment. So is this guy spoiling the enjoyment for the majority of boaters in this country? Of course not. There are unique issues in London. but why are CRT getting involved? This is an issue for local government, not CRT. It should indeed be which is why I would advocate local authority management of all towpath moorings. CRT is not a housing authority. They offer some residential moorings but the lawful use of these is subject to local authority management at the end of the day. CRT are being asked, by nbta as an example, to be a health and housing service. How can they do this? I must admit my views have changed over the past few years. Hopefully for the better. However I am seeing more and more of a threat to the navigation, but more importantly to those who live on boats outside London due to local issues being perceived as national issues when they are not. There is a reason why property prices in London are far higher than elsewhere. There is a reason why many people from all over the world want to flock to London. I still hate London though....
|
|
|
Post by Telemachus on Apr 7, 2019 22:45:10 GMT
Firstly I wouldn't take any heed of anything NBTA says. It will be absolutely and entirely one sided to suit their agenda.
Secondly the BSS is only about inspecting certain elements of a boat, mostly the services such as gas, electricity and fuel. Not about the basic structure of the boat. Having a BSS doesn't mean the boat is safe. It just means that those elements falling within the BSS are deemed to be satisfactory.
This one looks top heavy and basically, it isn't a boat. It is a floating shed. Note that they say it can fit under "most" of the bridges. So it can't fit under numerous bridges, which may be an excuse not to move.
If you want the canals to become filled up with floating slum sheds with people living in them who have no interest in boating except as a place to live then fine. Personally I don't. So in this case, I welcome CRT trying to stop the pisstakers.
I am sure he is a very nice chap but he is living beyond his means, and that never ends well.
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 8, 2019 4:09:12 GMT
How about sendinng an e-mail to the NBTA and ask for the truth and the details? Do I have to do this?
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 8, 2019 6:27:09 GMT
C&RT have tried something along similar lines before, but there appear to be some new twists to this latest outbreak of unnecessary spite, . . aka (by C&RT) as "Customer Licence Support" ! They do have powers under Section 7 of the 1983 British Waterways Act to take action against genuinely 'unsafe' vessels, but this instance is simply another occasion when they have chosen to ignore rather than exercise the powers that Parliament gave them via their predecessors, and once again, dream up and apply their own warped version of the real legislation. Specifically, what's happening here is that C&RT are resurrecting a 2017 Court Order for the boat to be removed from all C&RT controlled waters, despite having since issued new PBL's for the boat. The latest Licence has been 'revoked' on grounds that are at present somewhat vague and unclear, although stated by C&RT to have been specifically under their legally unenforceable Licence T & C's and not under any one, or more, of the three lawful proviso's for Licence termination under Section 17 of the 1995 Act. C&RT are threatening action against this man and his home under a 2017 Court Order, which having been complied with in every respect, is in effect a spent Order, and NOT the re-activateable ''Court Order in Perpetuity" that C&RT are now pretending it is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 7:11:33 GMT
License?
|
|
|
Post by naughtyfox on Apr 8, 2019 7:28:34 GMT
I'm at work so it's not easy to send an e-mail to the NBTA. Is anyone else going to send one to ask for clarification? I don't see the harm in that.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 8, 2019 8:05:09 GMT
Actually, I'm on the boater's side here. We need more enterprising people like Andrzei, rather than these pesky workshy Brits who insist on safe working practices, a living wage and a house to live in. <iframe width="29" height="2.980000000000004" style="position: absolute; width: 29px; height: 2.980000000000004px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_88676020" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="29" height="2.980000000000004" style="position: absolute; width: 29px; height: 2.98px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1385px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_76279759" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="29" height="2.980000000000004" style="position: absolute; width: 29px; height: 2.98px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 90px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_62571233" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="29" height="2.980000000000004" style="position: absolute; width: 29px; height: 2.98px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1385px; top: 90px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_67746446" scrolling="no"></iframe> I bet he drives waggons for nowt on the side.
|
|
|
Post by bod on Apr 8, 2019 8:25:04 GMT
In fairness to all, the full claimed reasons for this action need to be known. If the boat is unsafe, what needs to be done to make it safe? Should this be an unsafe item, outside the BSS remit, who decides when it is safe?
Bod
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2019 8:39:30 GMT
I was wondering why you rarely see counter statements from CRT via their press office regarding statements like this. Claims like ‘predudice’ are quite serious so you’d think CRT would quickly want to dispel accusations publicaly if they are untrue.
Maybe they don’t want to comment on individual cases.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Apr 8, 2019 8:41:17 GMT
No-one should be under any illusions about this. There is no genuine concern or issue over any aspect of safety.
It is simply the C&RT's boat stealing squad trying out a new approach to achieving their goals as their much loved and abused Section 8 process comes under ever greater scrutiny and it's limitations, when applied and used as Parliament intended, become ever more evident.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Apr 8, 2019 8:45:00 GMT
In fairness to all, the full claimed reasons for this action need to be known.If the boat is unsafe, what needs to be done to make it safe? Should this be an unsafe item, outside the BSS remit, who decides when it is safe? Bod This is always the problem. Impartial information is hard to get. If they have claimed it is unsafe, from reading Nigel's post, it seems there should be documentation, listing the faults and what remedial action needs to be taken, both immediate requirements for critical works and time listed works to bring fully up to standard. (This is the format when the MCA are dealing with an unsafe vessel) If CRT have failed to do this I would think they are chancing their arm again. I should imagine the only other way they could claim the boat as unsafe, is if they and their surveyor have been refused access to inspect.
|
|